 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Al-Mahdi v. United States, Nos. 00-CF-1684 & 02-CO-334,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Extra-judicial contact with juror did not mandate mistrial as trial judge conducted thorough voir dire before concluding incident did not imperil right to fair and impartial jury. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to file motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| Baker v. United States, Nos. 01-CF-383, 01-CF-392, 01-CF-517, 01-CF-520,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no constructive amendment of indictment on essential element of offense when trial court gave instruction that advised jury how to evaluate circumstantial evidence of intent. Admission of one defendant's statement to police had no effect.
|
|||||
| In re Reynolds, No. 04-BG-452,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney's petition for reinstatement was denied where he failed to show that he understood the seriousness of his conduct and that he was fit to resume practicing law.
|
|||||
| Columbia Plaza Tenants' Ass'n v. Columbia Plaza L.P., No. 03-CV-1296,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where partnership sold an interest in an apartment complex, the agreement was not a sale under D.C. Code Ann. § 42-3404.02(b)(1) or (5) of the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase and Sale Act, D.C. Code Ann. § 42-3404.02 (2001), or a master lease under § 42-3404.02(c). Partnership did not have to allow tenants to purchase the property prior to the sale.
|
|||||
| Holmes v. Brethren Mut. Ins. Co., No. 03-CV-1304,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As insured did not hire owner's van but rather his service of finding and transporting customers to its bingo parlor, paying him only for customers he delivered to its door, and exercised no control over how and when van was used, van was not a "covered auto" under liability policy and injuries to appellant's decedent were not covered by policy.
|
|||||
| In re Steele, Nos. 03-BG-808 & 04-BG-395,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Findings of fact by Board on Professional Responsibility that attorney's conduct involved pattern of aggravated neglect that caused range of harm to clients were supported by substantial evidence in record, as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(1), and, thus, its recommendation that he be suspended for extended period was warranted and adopted.
|
|||||
| Moorer v. United States, No. 01-CF-1409,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly convicted defendant of unarmed carjacking pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. § 22-2803(a)(1) (2001); it could not have had jury consider taking property without right pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. § 22-3216 (2001) as a lesser-included offense since taking property without right was not a lesser-included offense of unarmed carjacking.
|
|||||
| Woodland L.P. v. Wulff, No. 03-CV-266,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's grant of law firm partner's motion to stay arbitration proceedings could not be sustained since he was no longer contesting that assignees had the right to arbitrate, but the question of whether assignees the waived right to arbitrate, as D.C. Code Ann. § 16-4301 (2001) contemplated could occur, had to be addressed by the arbitrator.
|
|||||
| Yates v. District of Columbia, No. 02-CV-275,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
